PCGS Standards different for different Series.

braddick

It wasn't long ago someone posted a scan of a PCGS 1796 Bust Quarter. I think it was from a Teletrade scan, but regardless, the coin showed many pin scratches on the obverse. -Damage really. But, it was holdered by PCGS. The general consensus was because of the rarity, PCGS 'overlooked' the damage and allowed the coin to be encapsulated.
Here's another example of that: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1376518998 It's a rare 1794 Flowing Hair dollar. It shows evidence of corrosion. Now, if this was a 1877-S Trade dollar, or just about anything else, I'm sure it wouldn't be holdered.

My question is, should PCGS allow for the rarity of a coin when it considers whether to holder it or not? I know their general policy is not to slab any coin with damage and/or harshly cleaned, or tooled/ altered, and on and on. But, apparently that policy doesn't apply to all coins.
What do you think? Is this "double standard" acceptable to you?

Russ

That's the coin that went to $74K and didn't sell on Teletrade in #1613.

EDIT: Matter of fact, he's using exactly the same description.

Russ, NCNE

EVillageProwler

Russ,

That coin didn't sell because its reserve was too high (I suspect). Otherwise, that beasty looking coin is actually quite acceptable for a 1794 dollar.

EVP

jtryka

I don't have a problem with the "double standard" as such, as a 200 year old coin has probably been through a lot more than an Ike, or Franklin, etc. The only problem I have is with PCGS doing it, since they hold out their standards for all other coins (like you said, if the 1794 was a 1974 it would be bodybagged). Any coin in a PCGS holder is assumed to contain none of the characteristics that would normally lead to a bodybag (harsh cleaning, whizzing, AT, tooling, etc.). The fact that some are overlooked, that could create confusion among less knowledgable buyers. Personnally, I would prefer if PCGS adopted an ANACS style policy of noting the problems on the slab to eliminate any confusion. But I doubt PCGS would ever want to address this dirty little secret and actually start net grading instead of just charging for bodybags. I think what they forget, is that on older, more frequently counterfeited coins, the authentication of a professional grader like ANACS becomes more valuable than the grading itself.

keithdagen

You only have to start looking at early Large Cents and Half Cents (especially from 1793-1800) to see the double standard. Bowers will describe the coins as partially corroded, yet they are in PCGS slabs.

Higashiyama

Braddick -- to quibble a little over language, I don't think that PCGS should consider rarity when deciding whether to slab a coin, but I think it is appropriate to consider age. In general, I think 18th century coins are viewed as very collectible even with some damage or corrosion. I would love to own the 1794 dollar pictured. Of course, severely damaged coins should not be slabbed regardless, but a few scratches seem more out of place on a 20th century coin than they do on early coins. (with that said, the previous 1796 quarter example was surprising -- I would not have slabbed that coin!)

braddick

Would you agree it's rarity AND age? I have an 1806 Bust half that is not rare (or even scarce really) that was bodybagged for a rim bump. I have no problem with that. (The rim bump would have been hidden by the holder.)
Now, if it had been a 1797 half (nine years earlier) it would have easily been holdered.

So, I stick with rarity, but will conceed 'age' has much to do with it possibly too.

jom

The question should be s whether the coin is still market acceptable. For a 1796 Quarter or 1794 dollar, I'm pretty sure it is. If so, holdering it is OK. It is what the "market" decides.

jom

roadrunner

The bias also extends to the grading of MS early type. The standards for those are different than for later 19th century coins and 20th century coins. If the same standards were employed on UNC bust dollars as is used in grading CH UNC seated dollars, I doubt there would be a dozen CH UNC seated dollars available. "Allowances" in grading are made due to the early manufacturing techniques used on these coins. I think PCGS made the decision early on that they needed to ensure an adequate supply of high grade bust material in holders. Calling everything near mint state AU wouldn't have cut it. Big time collectors and investors want UNCs! So of course the standards are different in every aspect from cleaning, damage, corrosion, and what is allowed as mint state.

roadrunner

andy007

PCGS would have quite a small population of Bust Halves and Quarters to slab if they didn't overlook a light cleaning in most cases.